Thread

1. impossiblefork · 1790106526 · focus · HN ↗

   Personally I'm more interested in the justification for the second and third strikes.

   There needs to be some protection for first responders and others helping the injured.

   1. FireBeyond · 1790106866 · focus · HN ↗

      Israel likes to argue that Hamas embeds fighters with first responders, which even if so, they're still responding to injured. But Israel considers this not even collateral damage but justified.

      Mind you Israel is currently funding a lobbyist organization in the UK to flag Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) as a terrorist group (because many years ago a couple of people who had affiliations with other anti-Israel groups were found to be also affiliated with MSF).

      1. FireBeyond · 1790115333 · focus · HN ↗

         Responding here to answer the dead comment which feels entirely disingenuous.

         No-one mentioned "using ambulances as cover". That is separate from "enemy combatants are acting in a first responder capacity, but are still enemy combatants, therefore the entire first response effort is a viable target". That is a war crime that Israel regularly likes to commit.

         > These are the same people who view women as property, homosexuality as a reason for execution, and 13 years olds as viable brides.

         Halacha? Acquiring your wife through kiddushin? Only a husband can issue a get (divorce document)? Women in agunahs (dead marriages)? Sounds like property to me.

         Rabbinic law makes capital punishment effectively impossible, but the Orthodox sects do everything possible to punish: disownment, both family and social and actual exile from physical communities.

         Don't girls reach halachic adulthood at 12?

         And lets not throw stones here. Even in the US, you can get married with parental consent or a judge's consent at any age in Mississippi, New Mexico and Oklahoma.

         You can get married at 15 in Hawaii and Kansas.

         You are "grandfathered" into sexual consent (not as in "accepting of marital rape" but "it's no longer statutory rape if she's your wife") when you do so.

         So we may not want to be lording it too much on some guise of moral superiority, particularly given that most of the marriages that happen at those ages are not "young couple got pregnant, want to do the right thing" but "older man in conservative/religious community saw young vulnerable girl and decided he had to have her".

         1. hackernud3s · 1790122469 · focus · HN ↗

            [dead]

            1. newspaper1 · 1790123850 · focus · HN ↗

               The US and Israel have murdered far, far more innocent people than Hamas. Hamas are resistance that killed < 2,000 Israelis (most of which were both in and killed by the IDF). The US has killed millions of innocent people in the last century alone, many for the benefit of Israel.

               What the US/Israel have done in Gaza is orders of magnitude worse than anything Hamas has done and that's not even touching Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...

               1. hackernud3s · 1790128757 · focus · HN ↗

                  [dead]

                  1. defrost · 1790129016 · focus · HN ↗

                     > You can also easily park that full death toll on Hamas since they started it.

                     Doubtful - they were only founded in 1987. If you check news reports there's been back and forth killing in that region going back decades prior to '87.

                     1. hackernud3s · 1790129752 · focus · HN ↗

                        I'm only going back to Oct 7 attacks. You can put the full death toll that followed on Hamas since that was their goal with the hostage-taking in the first place.

                        1. chmod775 · 1790131725 · focus · HN ↗

                           Well, but I'm only going back to Oct 8th! Gotcha!

                           "Who started it" is a stupid and pointless question to begin with, but now we're reaching new heights.

                           If both sides are comitting warcrimes, both sides must be condemned and sanctioned. It's not about who is committing warcrimes harder or who was first.

                           1. hackernud3s · 1790142683 · focus · HN ↗

                              I'm going back to Oct 7 for my argument. You can go back to Oct 8 for yours but you'd be arguing in bad faith.

                              1. tancop · 1790153353 · focus · HN ↗

                                 How is it bad faith? This whole situation is a cycle of revenge going back at least to the 1920s with conflicts between Arabs and Jewish settlers in Mandatory Palestine. Israel is killing civilians, but Hamas attacked them, but the IDF was enforcing segregation, but they had to show force after the intifadas...

                                 And you can trace that back to the Balfour declaration being unclear, and rabbis who started religious Zionism feeling entitled to the land, and antisemitic massacres in Europe that inspired Theodor Herzl to campaign for a Jewish state. Or even further back until you end up in Biblical times.

                                 You can't just pick a start date and decide who is responsible for all this.

                                 1. newspaper1 · 1790178292 · focus · HN ↗

                                    I wouldn't call Palestinian resistance "revenge". If someone stole your land, trying to get it back isn't really revenge imho. I think going back to the creation of Zionism is the best starting point. Ashkenazis are mostly European, so it doesn't make sense to go back to biblical times (which were mostly fictional anyway). This is a pretty textbook case of European colonization.
                                 2. hackernud3s · 1790208226 · focus · HN ↗

                                    It's bad faith because no sane person would willfully ignore the cause of the current conflict when making an argument about who started it.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.